ShadowMinister,quote..>>OUG,God does not exist..<<
if that is meant to be a provaction[it isnt]

NO_ONE can prove anything to a closed heart
nor does/can/will god

[jesus realised the miracles only kept god belief
as long as the miracles keep comming]

[but we see the wrong miracles]

[how amasing life is,YET[all of mans brain power for many milenia
has NOT MADE ITS'OWN'LIFE-forms

only able to modify a few breeds via domestication

you have had many god moments
but you didnt realise them
;you had been entertaining
[or being taught]
by angels unaware

[or god];that still quiet voice of love/life
and good conscious and consciencesness
[light/love/logic/life]

god sustains all life to live
as well as our very universe.

that you call luck[or fate]
you think god who gives all life their living
is revealed
to those who seek to know him not?

you wont even face the facts [deceptions inherant in any theory

let alone digest links
[nor search for the unseen,unseeable force living right in your own heart[too]

you cant see wind,or radiation or many light specrums
and much other such as upper and lower sound vibrations
but your heart fears to see the god,as YOU THINK him wrongly to be

but here is some help to the hopeless
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-31-2004-57312.asp

http://www.evidencebible.com/pdf/29_Proverbs_1_to_15.pdf

try page 4
crumbs off my table of plenty
[i myself didnt read them till half an hour ago]
they arnt my message

but by the same token neither is any holy text
[cleary because it is written by named men]

just as the flat earth isnt written in the bible[but presumed from all[every eye shall see him[re jesus 2 de comming]

[which aint going to happen,till we at least give peace to the peacemaker]]and our father]

the next thought is israel
[means wars with god][as the quaran would reveal it was written by the jinn,attatching the deceptions of those daring to call themselves ALlone as gods own

[who is not a child of god?
[who not given to live from god?
[what land not gods land?

look your troll[off topic]
is only because YOU cant explain god
[Nor evolution]

uog said:
[i really just didnt want it to become a slanging match]
just the facts to topic[is what that small voice suggested]

The sources you are using to illustrate your points are far from credible. Scripture based scientific research is not a rational position, all it does is create a theory that confirms your mythological beliefs - but without actual evidence. Didn't you say you were taught to question everything?

Dear Ludwig,

Can I prove my assertions about
OUG being a troll?
Well, as you pointed out - how
many different spellings of your
name did he do? Is he unhinged
or what?

Take a look at all of his posts,
and replies to people who genuinely
wanted to engage in a dialogue
with him.

Take a look at all the lucid explanations
that he's been given and totally rejected.

How can there be any discussion or debate
with a closed mind? -

He does not answer
any questions, ignores the proof that he
is given - - does
not want to hear answers that don't
meet with his beliefs- and so forth...

It's an exercise in futility to say
the least. What's the point to it all?
except that he's having fun at your expense.
So what does that say about all of you, who are
playing his game according to his rules.

There's no give and take, as far as I
can see - that in my book that makes him
as CJ would say:
a 'troll!'
Not worth bothering with.
I regret I got involved.
I entered this thread in good faith.
I thought the man was genuine.
I thought he wanted a genuine discussion.
I was wrong.
I won't be making that mistake in the future!

As the saying goes,
"A closed mind is like a closed book,
Just a block of wood!"

Or, as Judge Judy says,

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"

Well said Foxy, thanks for clarifying what I was already thinking, I'm going to take your advice and leave it alone now.

Yeah, Foxy,
I think that OTUG (one troll under god) does display some trollish behaviour.
Not sure if I could define "troll", but whether it's a troll or not, I don't think I'll bother with him/her/it anymore in the future.

I still enjoyed and learned from the replies by the 'evolutionists' though.

Why 'creationists' were discouraged to reply is funny- me thinks OTUG needs all the help he/she/it can get.

Real science is just science,
otherwise it's pseudoscience.

UOG - you say 'real' science only, OK
you also kept god off the table OK

How do I explain 'my' 'theory'
of evolution?

With science.

How I would explain evo. to a child?
by example as follows [next post]

--

You challenge;
Why I believe evolution
Because it is science.

But you also challenge me to explain
do I believe it like god?
That is not science. God is off topic.

That discussion has no jurisdiction in science.
This is long established.

So, why believe (that it works)?
Because I can rely on it to reveal the material world.
Progressively.

Therefore it is not false belief.
Within the domain of science.

Theories are deceptive when they're
hatched in secret and kept in closed circles.
Not in an open scientific forum.

You bring Creation Science and Intelligent design
on topic and link to the literature in your arguments.
Is this literature science?

Who gets to determine what is science?
Science or Creationists?

To answer this with sufficient authority.
We would require. A suitably qualified forum.
An arena of world's best practice.

As a recent example. I refer to;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

and

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

"ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of
which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been
refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

My rational belief is not blind because
I can examine the exact way in which the judgement
Was derived.

As is done in science.

>>> continued